Guild Renown Changes

[smatt]

Wut?

The "bonuses" are there to make sure we have a level playing field. That most guild sizes were viable - like the goal that was stated when the system rolled out.

With the new changes, it's completely unbalanced.

I understand you don't think small guilds should be allowed to have a level playing field with large ones. That's OK. But Turbine's stated goals beg to differ.

Turbines stated goal was NEVER for all guilds to hit unlimited levels. Every guild depending on size, activety and playstyle will cap at some point, at some random level depending on those factors.

Just because there are people who feel entitled, that don't want to improve the way they play with regards to earning renown, doesn't mean they should be given everything for free.

I understand that you think guild ships and what's on them is an entitlement, not an earned benefit that requires sustained upkeep. I undersatnd that you think that everything should always be even and fair no matter if yiour guild puts in 10 hours of total playtime a week or 10,000.

So I guess we have to agree to disagree....

[Hendrik]

Turbines stated goal was NEVER for all guilds to hit unlimited levels. Every guild depending on size, activety and playstyle will cap at some point, at some random level depending on those factors.

And lack of any willingness of the player(s) to take it upon themselves to change one of those variables that they have total control over is very telling. Instead of taking charge of one or all of those variables the system must change to suit lack of any responsibility.

The system is working for a vast majority of Guilds of all sizes. It is 'failing' those that will not take initiative to change the variables they have control over.

[Chai]

Handouts? Wut?

Large guilds have it several times more easy than small guilds, and to want a fairer system than that is wanting handouts?

/confused

People should not be discouraged to invite more people because they are right on the cusp of losing the small guild bonus if they do.

Want fair? They could have made it a flat rate where renown is worth what its worth accross the board, which would be the only fair system.

I think its fair to encourage guild growth. What we had in place before encouraged keeping guilds small because the small bonus more than mitigated not having people in the guild. This is poor game design and Turbine realized it, as people had to make a choice of guilding with friends or earning more renown.

[Chai]

And lack of any willingness of the player(s) to take it upon themselves to change one of those variables that they have total control over is very telling. Instead of taking charge of one or all of those variables the system must change to suit lack of any responsibility.

We see this alot in this game, and not just in earning guild renown.

[Dandonk]

Well, you're free to your opinions, of course.

Personally, I'm glad that Turbine sees that there should be room for every kind of player, not just players who like large guilds.

Edit: Large guilds had control over their own situations before, too. This didn't make the system right - not at all. Likewise, the current system having options for small guilds to change doesn't make it right, either.

[Gremmlynn]

I keep an eye on the lfms when I am questing. There is no problem with lfms in korthos or the harbor. That is there many of the free to play players are. If anything it's harder for the vips to find people to play with once they advance past the free to play quests.

As a new player I enjoyed questing with new players. Although you make that out to be some kind of a problem I feel it is quite natural to group with people at your own level just as people do in golf, sports leagues and just about any other kind of activity where there is a disparity.

Again that is great that you are helping your guild mates. Pretty much everyone does that. Why not help some random pugs in the harbor if you feel it is so important. I do not feel it is important because there are more players there than just about anywhere else in the game and there are usually alot of groups up.

When I TR I run level 1 through 10 in a day or less so I really don't have much time I can spend there. All my other toons are higher levels. But if you feel it is important please spend some time there with some folks not in your guild.

Joining the rare random pug in the harbor, or more likely Khorthos on our server, is how we get our new members.

When I do this it's with a bank character, not a TR (I don't even have a TR), so how fast we level is of zero consequence to me. Gaining levels and personal progress isn't the point. Finding new members and teaching them how to play so I have reliable people to run with on my high level characters eventually is.

[Artos_Fabril]

Well, you're free to your opinions, of course.

Personally, I'm glad that Turbine sees that there should be room for every kind of player, not just players who like large guilds.

Edit: Large guilds had control over their own situations before, too. This didn't make the system right - not at all. Likewise, the current system having options for small guilds to change doesn't make it right, either.

Yes, large guilds had control over one aspect of their situation previously. The problem was that it was an exclusionary control. Small guilds that want to advance without becoming more active, can instead choose to be more inclusive in order to advance.

The situation is not perfect, but it is not entirely analogous either.

[Gremmlynn]

The bottom line is that decay is still an individual responsibility and best computed by taking total decay and dividing by the # of people. If a person doesn't run content fast enough they are costing the guild renown.

I am primarily running end game content and when I TR every so often I am back to 25 in 4-5 days. My last few TRs I soloed 90%+ because if I formed pugs I knew from past experience our guild would move backwards because we need to run content very fast at our level to keep up with decay.

I've ignored it the last few times you made these type of comments about exclusiveness, but quite frankly it's laughuable coming from a person that takes on new players and then dumps them, keeping 75% of their renown, if they don't meet whatever standards your guild has. My guild has only removed players that were inactive a long time.

We never turned anyone away that wanted to join our guild. I am sure made over 100 invites since we started our guild. Our guild is simply playing the game and trying to enjoy it. We are doing nothing wrong.

So by your math a one man guild that has to earn 10K renown that takes on another player who only earns 3k renown is worse off having to earn 7k than they were having to earn 10k? How is this?

It's all about man-hours. If it takes a guild 10 man-hours to beat decay, it doesn't matter if it's 10 men playing an hour or one playing ten hours. The guilds that are going to beat decay are those who simply play enough man-hours. It's not rocket science.

The only people who have a problem with this system seem to be those who find all guilds having to cover the same amount of man-hours at any level to somehow be unfair.

[Gremmlynn]

The current decay multiplier was changed to a fixed value of 20 (presumuably 10 accounts + 10) to a fixed value of 20 (0 +10) or (1 + 9) or however it could be done.

Is there anyone here that has a problem with it being changed to 10? This would give small guilds some decay relief and effectively help out guild of all sizes equally.

I don't think it's ideal, but if we must keep decay, what possible problems are there with such a change?

I doubt there are many people, outside of those who work for Turbine, that would have a problem with it being changed even to 0.

I also really don't see anyone who is against small guilds getting some relief. Some of us are just cautious that if they get to much relief the real go-getters that basically carry large guilds will dump those they are carrying to take advantage of it.

[Gremmlynn]

So, basically, the more guild members you have online, the more renown you get. The more Quests you run the more renown you get. The more renown you get the faster you can advance.

Getting your guild active (re: running quests) the better the guild is at overcoming decay.

Activity = renown.

System works.

Exactly. Either get a few members playing a lot or a lot of members playing a little or what ever combination leads to people player the amount of time it takes to cover decay. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Gremmlynn]

System is, according to Turbine even, unfair. But nice try.

Could you show me where they said that? Or even explain to me what they said was unfair about it? Because to me, as long as guild A needs to caver the same decay as guild B at the same guild level it is fair.

[DocBenway]

Here is the last official dev word we had on renown:

We're all for new ideas and brainstorming solutions (truly, really, not just tossing buzzwords). This particular idea is problematic, because it promotes kicking players from your guild to reduce decay, which is where we were before and a situation we want to avoid.

We are certainly still considering other changes and have never said that the current changes being tested were considered any kind of final solution. We'd love to have more ideas to consider.

Ideas that are more likely to work out are ones that feel fair, promote playing together with people you like and have fun with, and where the system itself isn't promoting who you play with. We don't want to promote any particular guild size. And we don't want incentives for kicking players you enjoy playing with, or for players who might like to come and hang out or play occasionally to feel like they are hurting their guild or harming their friends in any way. If these goals seem wrong, we're willing to hear ideas on that too. This isn't an exhaustive list, but current thinking is leaning us strongly towards including these goals.

I can think of 1 thing that accomplishes all stated goals, that absolutely no right minded player would ever disagree with, and would stop all the "change/I don't wanna change" arguements of it.

ELIMINATE DECAY.

Very simple, no official stated reason for it to exist, and the kind of goodwill with the playerbase that a 95% discount at the DDOStore couldn't buy.

[Dandonk]

Could you show me where they said that? Or even explain to me what they said was unfair about it? Because to me, as long as guild A needs to caver the same decay as guild B at the same guild level it is fair.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...97#post4748497

"It's not fair. We still feel it's better to address some of the problem now instead of none of the problem. This isn't expected to address all problems immediately. We're sorry some players are still waiting."

Please take note that the exact phrase "it's not fair" does not directly point to the systen itself.

I do think the meaning of the post is much the same, though.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...64#post4778964

"We're happier with the changes currently in compared to before. The system running today isn't expected to be final. Further changes aren't yet imminent."

Again, telling us that the current running "test" system isn't perfect.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...18#post4737618

"We're still happy to hear ways to manage guilds of different sizes reasonably while also not motivating guilds to kick players."

Mentioning that the goal of supporting guilds other than large guilds is still on.

Turbine, we are still waiting. Three months later. Can we have some sort of time frame for this? Weeks, months, years, or decades?

[Dandonk]

Also, see Doc's post.

[Gremmlynn]

I can think of 1 thing that accomplishes all stated goals, that absolutely no right minded player would ever disagree with, and would stop all the "change/I don't wanna change" arguements of it.

ELIMINATE DECAY.

Very simple, no official stated reason for it to exist, and the kind of goodwill with the playerbase that a 95% discount at the DDOStore couldn't buy.

No official stated reason because "We want you to have to spend more money to get those buffs you so crave." probably wouldn't go over very well.

[Gremmlynn]

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...97#post4748497

"It's not fair. We still feel it's better to address some of the problem now instead of none of the problem. This isn't expected to address all problems immediately. We're sorry some players are still waiting."

Please take note that the exact phrase "it's not fair" does not directly point to the systen itself.

I do think the meaning of the post is much the same, though.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...64#post4778964

"We're happier with the changes currently in compared to before. The system running today isn't expected to be final. Further changes aren't yet imminent."

Again, telling us that the current running "test" system isn't perfect.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php...18#post4737618

"We're still happy to hear ways to manage guilds of different sizes reasonably while also not motivating guilds to kick players."

Mentioning that the goal of supporting guilds other than large guilds is still on.

Turbine, we are still waiting. Three months later. Can we have some sort of time frame for this? Weeks, months, years, or decades?

That's an awful lot of soft soap to avoid simply saying "Eliminating decay is the only real solution, but not something we a willing to do as it isn't in our best interests". All that's missing is a link to the DDOstore guild amenities section and a suggestion that the answers to everyone's concerns can be found there.

[Chaos000]

Decay is a GUILD responsability, not just one person.

The moment decay becomes a personal responsibility, players that play below the norm will become a burden or a charity case to a guild.

Current system works.

If any additional bonuses assigned to smaller guilds to help them out was not factored on size, players that play below the norm will not be further disadvantaged.

Example: Guild size category determines bonuses, guild ship size assigns a multiplier. Upgrade to (platinum bought) larger ship results in a reduced multiplier, Astral Diamond bought ship does not change multiplier.

[Hendrik]

Here is the last official dev word we had on renown:



I can think of 1 thing that accomplishes all stated goals, that absolutely no right minded player would ever disagree with, and would stop all the "change/I don't wanna change" arguements of it.

ELIMINATE DECAY.

Very simple, no official stated reason for it to exist, and the kind of goodwill with the playerbase that a 95% discount at the DDOStore couldn't buy.

Yes, there has been OFFICIAL reason for it to exist and a sound gameplay reason for it to exist!


Renown Decay

A guild’s level represent’s their current stature, and that stature is based on their renown. If “renown” is your guild’s “fame,” then your guild is like a famous actor, but in more ways than one! With a successful actor, the level of their fame can decline if they’re removed from the public eye for an extended period of time. The same is true for a guild’s renown – it can fade if the guild is not keeping active around the city thwarting monsters and waging battles of glory. If a guild were able to rise to an impressively high level and then cease to be active, their renown would start to decay as the tales of their heroics faded into memory.

For the first part of a guild’s level progression, decay of a guild’s renown isn’t a concern, but as a guild’s level increases beyond a certain threshold, they start to face additional challenges progressing – and maintaining - their renown and guild level. This mostly pertains to ambitious guilds that attain very high renown; we felt that this would create an exciting dynamic and foster some friendly competition! Who can rise to the top, and stay at the top, of the city’s list of famous guilds?

Guild levels below 26 do not decay. As a guild reaches the highest levels, the rate of decay will increase.

There you have it.

[Hendrik]

That's an awful lot of soft soap to avoid simply saying "Eliminating decay is the only real solution, but not something we a willing to do as it isn't in our best interests". All that's missing is a link to the DDOstore guild amenities section and a suggestion that the answers to everyone's concerns can be found there.

One thing there Gremm, the 'it's not fair' part, as admitted my Dan, is not referring to the system itself.

But only to have they are addressing the problem in parts and not all at once.



So you can continue to wait.

[smatt]

Here is the last official dev word we had on renown:



I can think of 1 thing that accomplishes all stated goals, that absolutely no right minded player would ever disagree with, and would stop all the "change/I don't wanna change" arguements of it.

ELIMINATE DECAY.

Very simple, no official stated reason for it to exist, and the kind of goodwill with the playerbase that a 95% discount at the DDOStore couldn't buy.

Hmm, I consider myself right minded... And despite the fact that a lot of people dont' understand decay.... I do...

I am not for elimiinating it....